User Controls
THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2021-08-19 at 9:46 PM UTC
-
2021-08-19 at 9:46 PM UTC
-
2021-08-19 at 10:20 PM UTCORANGE MAN GOOD VOTE MAGA I LOVE YOU
BIGLY AND NEAT HE GOT BIG HANDS AND BIG FEET
MERGE IS ON!!! TRUST THE DON!!!! MERGE IS ON!!!!!
ORANGE MAN GOOD VOTE MAGA I LOVE YOU
BIGLY AND NEAT HE GOT BIG HANDS AND BIG FEET
MERGE IS ON!!! TRUST THE DON!!!! MERGE IS ON!!!!!
ORANGE MAN GOOD VOTE MAGA I LOVE YOU
BIGLY AND NEAT HE GOT BIG HANDS AND BIG FEET
MERGE IS ON!!! TRUST THE DON!!!! MERGE IS ON!!!!! -
2021-08-19 at 10:23 PM UTCOOPS!
https://www.roguereview.net/watch-rep-boebert-shreds-the-dems-for-ignoring-hunter-bidens-crimes/
Make 'em
All
Go do
As I say and not as I do
Rep. Lauren Boebert failed to disclose that her husband raked in nearly $1 million from an energy company over 2 years
insider@insider.com (Eliza Relman)
Boebert revealed that her husband earned nearly $1 million between 2019-2020 for energy sector consulting.
The freshman congresswoman failed to disclose her husband's income during her campaign last year.
Boebert introduced legislation to reverse President Joe Biden's ban on oil and gas exploration on federal land.
Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert revealed this week that her husband earned nearly a million dollars over 2019 and 2020 for consulting work he did for an energy firm.
The freshman Colorado congresswoman failed to disclose her husband's income, which was $478,000 in 2020 and $460,000 in 2019, during her campaign last year, the Associated Press first reported. This failure is a violation of ethics and campaign finance laws, which require candidates to disclose their spouse's and children's income or assets.
"It is not common for members to not disclose their spouse's income because it's just a very clear requirement under the law," Kedric Payne, senior director of ethics for the Campaign Legal Center, told Insider.
In her 2020 financial disclosure statement, Boebert said her income came from a restaurant, Shooters Grill, and smokehouse she owns with her husband, Jayson. She also listed "Boebert Consulting - spouse" and recorded her husband's source of income as "N/A," according to the AP.
Payne said Boebert should provide a "very public explanation" of the discrepancy. He expects the Office of Congressional Ethics will open an inquiry if they have questions about whether the violation was intentional. The required disclosures are designed to ensure that the public can evaluate a candidate's potential conflicts of interest.
Rep. Lauren Boebert Discloses Husband Jayson Boebert's Work For Energy Firm
The energy industry is a major player in Colorado's vast 3rd Congressional District and Boebert, who sits on the House Natural Resources Committee, has taken aggressively pro-oil and -gas positions. She introduced legislation earlier this year seeking to reverse President Joe Biden's ban on oil and gas leasing and permitting on some federally-owned land.
Her deputy chief of staff, Ben Stout, told the AP that Jayson Boebert "has worked in energy production for 18 years and has had Boebert Consulting since 2012."
But Boebert Consulting hasn't filed required regular reports to the state of Colorado and is classified as delinquent, The Washington Post reported. And there is no company called Terra Energy Productions registered in Colorado. There is a Texas firm called Terra Energy Partners, claiming to be "one of the largest producers of natural gas in Colorado." The congresswoman has previously said her husband is a drilling foreman on a natural gas rig and posted an Instagram photo of him wearing a "Terra" helmet in September 2020.
It's unclear whether the congresswoman's failure to disclose her husband's work and income was intentional or accidental, but the matter could be investigated by congressional ethics officials.
Boebert's office didn't respond to Insider's request for comment.
On Wednesday, the Federal Election Commission sent Boebert a letter demanding more information about four payments amounting to more than $6,000 that Boebert's campaign paid the congresswoman between May 3 and June 3. Stout told CNBC "the Venmo charges were personal expenses that were billed to the campaign account in error" and that Boebert has already reimbursed her campaign.
"If it is determined that the disbursement(s) constitutes the personal use of campaign funds, the Commission may consider taking further legal action," Shannon Ringgold, an FEC analyst, wrote. -
2021-08-19 at 11:57 PM UTCTHE DIMENSIONAL MERGE IS GONNA BE KINDA LIKE THIS
-
2021-08-20 at 2:08 AM UTC
-
2021-08-20 at 11:13 AM UTC
-
2021-08-20 at 1:49 PM UTC
-
2021-08-20 at 1:56 PM UTC
-
2021-08-20 at 4:12 PM UTC
-
2021-08-20 at 4:14 PM UTC16 September 2021 is …
259th day of the year. There are then 106 days left in 2021.
37th Thursday of 2021.
on the 37th week of 2021 (using ISO standard week number calculation).
88th day of Summer. There are 6 days left till Fall.
Birthstone for this day: Sapphire -
2021-08-20 at 5:01 PM UTCThe Washington Post
Trump’s deal with the Taliban, explained
Amber Phillips
As criticism of the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal continues to build, President Biden has argued that he effectively had little choice in the matter. A deal President Donald Trump cut with the Taliban last year forced Biden to choose between a withdrawal now and an escalation of the war, Biden says. And as The Fix’s Aaron Blake notes, with the brutal Taliban regime retaking power, former Trump officials are suddenly and conspicuously scrambling to distance themselves from that deal.
But when the deal was cut in Doha, Qatar, in February 2020, it wasn’t treated as huge news, because the war itself wasn’t big news. So, many people don’t actually know what’s in it.
With the deal now getting new scrutiny — along with the rest of how the war was prosecuted — we thought it worthwhile to provide some background.
Why Trump cut the deal
When Trump came into office, he was pretty transparent — he just wanted out of Afghanistan. “Trump had no real sense of what was at stake in the war or why to stay,” writes Georgetown professor Paul Miller in a digestible history of the 20-year war.
So Trump took a swing at something his predecessors hadn’t: a full-bore effort to strike a deal with the Taliban. It took nine rounds of talks over 18 months. At one point, Trump secretly invited the Taliban to the presidential retreat at Camp David on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary. But he shut that down — and on Twitter threatened to shut down all talks — after an American service member was killed and there was bipartisan backlash over the invitation.
Talks continued in Doha, and in February 2020, Trump announced that there was a deal. The basic contours: The United States was to get out of Afghanistan in 14 months and, in exchange, the Taliban agreed not to let Afghanistan become a haven for terrorists. The Taliban also agreed to start peace talks with the Afghan government and consider a cease-fire with the government. (The Taliban had been killing Afghan forces throughout this, attempting to use the violence as leverage in negotiations, U.S. intelligence officials believed.)
The deal laid out an explicit timetable for the United States and NATO to pull out their forces: In the first 100 days or so, they would reduce troops from 14,000 to 8,600 and leave five military bases. Over the next nine months, they would vacate all the rest. “The United States, its allies, and the Coalition will complete withdrawal of all remaining forces from Afghanistan within the remaining nine and a half (9.5) months,” the deal reads. “The United States, its allies, and the Coalition will withdraw all their forces from remaining bases.”
The United States would release 5,000 Taliban prisoners; the Taliban would release 1,000 of its prisoners.
The Taliban’s end of the deal asked a lot from the group — too much to be realistic, critics said. In addition to making sure nowhere in the country harbored a terrorist cell, the Taliban agreed to be responsible for any individual who might want to attack the United States from Afghanistan, including new immigrants to the country.
The Taliban “will send a clear message that those who pose a threat to the security of the United States and its allies have no place in Afghanistan,” the deal read. And the Taliban agreed to “prevent any group or individual in Afghanistan from threatening the security of the United States and its allies, and will prevent them from recruiting, training, and fundraising and will not host them in accordance with the commitments in this agreement.”
This deal required taking the Taliban’s promises on faith.
“I really believe the Taliban wants to do something to show that we’re not all wasting time,” Trump said as he announced the agreement. He added as an aside: “If bad things happen, we’ll go back with a force like no one’s ever seen.”
The deal was a sweet one for the Taliban, critics say
One gaping problem, say scholars (including some from the Trump administration): The peace agreement came with no enforcement mechanism for the Taliban to keep its word.
The Taliban basically had to sign a pledge saying it wouldn’t harbor terrorists. Nowhere did the Taliban have to — nor did it choose to — denounce al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that launched the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan, Miller writes.
The biggest tangible commitment from the Taliban looked like this: For seven days before the deal was signed, its leaders significantly reduced their attacks on Afghan forces to show they were capable of controlling the group across the country. But the deal didn’t require that the Taliban stop its attacks against Afghan security forces.
Overall, it was a pretty good deal for the Taliban, critics said. “Trump all but assured the future course of events would reflect the Taliban’s interests far more than the United States’,” Miller writes. H.R., McMaster, Trump’s second national security adviser, has recently called it “a surrender agreement with the Taliban.” Another member of Trump’s National Security Council said it was “a very weak agreement.”
Cracks in the deal emerge almost immediately
A few months after the agreement was signed, there was plenty of evidence that the Taliban wasn’t as sincere as it appeared about peace. The United Nations said it had evidence that the Taliban and al-Qaeda still had ties. U.S. intelligence warned that al-Qaeda was “integrated” into the Taliban. The Taliban launched dozens of attacks in Afghanistan, ramping up its violence.
“The Taliban views the negotiations as a necessary step to ensure the removal of U.S. and other foreign troops under the U.S.-Taliban agreement, but the Taliban likely does not perceive that it has any obligation to make substantive concessions or compromises,” a U.S. inspector general report read.
It was all enough that when Biden came into office, U.S. officials questioned whether the Taliban was breaking its side of the deal.
But Trump chose to continue taking U.S. troops home
And he had bipartisan support for it.
It’s important to remember that by the time Trump came into office, the public debate on whether to stay in Afghanistan was largely over. Most Americans were done with the war. Even the military realized it couldn’t effect much more change on the current course. “The only way forward was going to be a political agreement,” Mark T. Esper, Trump’s former defense secretary, said recently. “Not a military solution.”
To a number of those who were paying attention, the whole deal felt like a naked attempt to just get out of Afghanistan. It was a campaign promise of Trump’s to be the president who finally ended America’s longest war. It would be something no other president had been able to accomplish.
Before the peace talks really got going, Trump had already started withdrawing thousands of troops, and he fired his defense secretary, Esper, after he wrote a memo disagreeing. (Esper later said that Trump’s withdrawing too many troops too soon contributed to what we see now in Afghanistan.)
When Biden took over, there were just 3,500 U.S. troops left in the country (from a high of 100,000 during the Obama years). He pushed back the date of the planned withdrawal from May 1 to four months later, but he kept the deal intact. U.S. troops would be out of Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
“It’s time to end America’s longest war,” he said.
The Taliban didn’t even wait for the Americans to completely leave before they took over the country in a matter of days. As the world watched Kabul fall, Biden defended his decision not to stay and fight by saying Trump’s deal required him to either maintain the withdrawal or escalate fighting.
“When I became president, I faced a choice — follow through on the deal, with a brief extension to get our forces and our allies’ forces out safely, or ramp up our presence and send more American troops to fight once again in another country’s civil conflict,” he said in a statement.
Critics have contended that’s a false choice, noting how many other international agreements of Trump’s that Biden has eschewed or rewritten. But given that Biden shared the goal to withdraw, it left him little leverage to renegotiate with the Taliban.
For both presidents, the peace deal with the Taliban presented a good opportunity to pursue their own agendas with regard to America’s longest war. And neither has seemed particularly regretful about doing so.
“Leaving having proposed a peace effort and then blaming the Afghans for not reaching peace is as good a cover for leaving as any,” said Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. -
2021-08-20 at 5:12 PM UTC
-
2021-08-20 at 5:13 PM UTCBuyer's Remorse??
-
2021-08-20 at 5:18 PM UTC
-
2021-08-20 at 8:09 PM UTC
-
2021-08-20 at 9:26 PM UTC
-
2021-08-20 at 9:42 PM UTCFUCK THE DEMS!!! FUCK REPVBLICANS!!! 3 PARTIES!!!
-
2021-08-20 at 9:59 PM UTChttps://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/
All of Techno and sti's paranoid retarded bullshit, debunked by the very same people who were putting it out. -
2021-08-20 at 10:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/
All of Techno and sti's paranoid retarded bullshit, debunked by the very same people who were putting it out.
WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Drink some more Chinese Russian propaganda kool-aid, comrade.
